1 Timothy
The Americans have little to suggest on the R.V. of this Pastoral Epistle, and that little of but dubious value. They have nothing to say about the best way of dealing with the anacoluthon or absence of the ordinary consequent clause after i. 3, 4. Nor do they notice the feebleness of “a” dispensation of God in the latter of these verses. They are right of course in accepting with the Revisers “charge,” as against the “commandment” of the A.V. which confounds the thing meant, either with the “commandment” in ver. 1, or still more fatally with the law treated of in ver. 7-10; as did the late Dean Alford in the amazing error of talking about “the law of God in the gospel!!” as the true force of T. v. in 5 even contradicting the true connection with v. in 3, taken up again in 18. There is no effort to express better than the A. and R.Vv., the anarthrous construction in 9; and sorely the margin of the R.V. (“smiter”) might have well displaced the text ("murderers"). It can scarcely have been forgotten by classical students that Demosthenes uses the term in the broader application of ill-usage, and that Plato in a dialog so well known as the Plaedo expressly distinguishes man-beaters and man-slayers. The more comprehensive force seems therefore decidedly preferable. Again, they have nothing to say to the strange insertion of the English article because the Greek one is requisite in the ὑγ S. in 10, a not infrequent fault in the R.V. Nor do they remark on the R.V., worse than the A.V. in unduly defining the general expression with which ver. 12 concludes. Undoubtedly it was to His service that our Lord appointed Paul, but what is said is appointing me to ministry (or service), though I was beforetime a blasphemer, &c. Instead of these, which have importance more or less, they say on 16 for “hereafter” read “thereafter,” where in truth neither is called for, T. p.. “those that should.” And in 18 they would substitute the margin for the A. and R.Vv. which seem both wrong in directly connecting προαγ. instead of προφ. with ἐπὶδέ. The sense is “the foregoing or preceding prophecies as to thee.”
On 2:4 they observe “Read who would have all men to be saved,” instead of the Revised “who willeth that all men should be saved.” It is the expression of desire, not of counsel. In the rest of the chapter they only refer to 15, and would have margin to exchange place with the text. Here again both Revisers and correctors seem at fault, and the A.V. is more accurate; for though the thing child-bearing is well rendered “in childbearing,” without “her” which is not intended, still less “the” as if pointing to the virgin Mary's which is wholly foreign to the passage, pace Ellicott after Hammond.
Not a word have they on the weighty chapter iv. In v. they only suggest as to 12 to read “pledge” (with margin Gr. faith) for “faith,” a questionable rendering indeed. In vi. 2 they would read “are minded” for “desire.”
2 Timothy
They would reverse the Revised “incorruption” and restore A V “immortality” as the rendering of ἀφθαρσίαυ. Very probably they were misled by Drs. Alford and Ellicott, or by others who misdirected them. For it is an error that the body is not in question here. Life refers to the soul, as incorruptibility to the body, both brought to light by Christ through the gospel. His resurrection was victory over death, which annulled its power; as the gospel brings us even now by faith into that which will be finally displayed in full at His appearing in glory. “Immortality” is a fatal step backwards.
The only other American suggestion is as to the last verse of n. They, as in the A.V., prefer it all to refer to Satan, “having been taken captive by him unto his will,” with the margin slightly modified. The manifest objection to the A.V. lies in the reference of the two different pronouns to God. Hence Beza led the way in taking αὐτ. of the devil, ἐκ. of God. Bengel's notion of spiritual captive by the Lord's servant, adopted by the committee, appears highly unnatural. G. Wakefield has the extraordinary turn “after being rescued alive,” and so far differs from the Revisers; but this was to forget the perfect and give an aoristic sense rather to the participles, besides the etymological force. To wake up to God's will after having been captive to Satan is simple enough.
TITUS
affords scope for three notes; 1, 2, the strangely loose “long ages ago” for margin to “before times eternal,” the singular rendering of the Revisers. But it is easier to disapprove than to do well. The meaning is before the ages of time, though it seems not very satisfactory as a version.
In 2:13 they would make the text and the margin of the Revision exchange places. Either way the person of Christ shines in glory. The context seems here to favor the text as better than the margin.
As to 3:10, “factious” is certainly less equivocal than “heretical,” which is apt to be taken as heterodox; whereas a leader of a sect or party outside is meant in contra-distinction from a schismatic within. The true meaning is of moment, as in other ways, so in utterly overthrowing De Wette's unbelieving effort to deny the apostolic and inspired claim of the Epistle by assuming the later ecclesiastical usage for this word. In reality it rather proves the contrary, and thus its true Pauline sense here confirms the fact that he who wrote 1 Corinthians and Galatians wrote this letter to Titus. 2 Peter 2 allows of debate as to the precise shade of meaning, but there can be no just doubt of the same sense in the epistles of Paul; and it is not the later or ecclesiastical sense.